Mr. Speaker, I know they like to come and talk but not bother to vote. At least they could let other people talk sometimes. I will make the best effort to continue, notwithstanding the interruptions.

In terms of the question, the Minister of Finance has been clear that that intention reflected in the ways and means motion will also be carried forward in the budget implementation bill. The ways and means motion corresponds exactly to what will be in the budget implementation bill. It is not a question of dealing with the statutory measure through the ways and means motion. It is a question of dealing with it through the budget implementation bill and creating, through the ways and means motion, the authority to do that and proceed with that.

On the other questions that were raised yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you heard submissions from the member for Pickering—Scarborough East in which he argued that the government's ways and means motion tabled yesterday was out of order based on the rule of anticipation. He argued that the previous consideration of Bill C-253 made it impossible to now consider the ways and means motion.

Marleau and Montpetit observes at page 476:

The moving of a motion was formerly subject to the ancient “rule of anticipation” which is no longer strictly observed.

In fact, if we read on, they go on to observe that it is even stronger than that. The rule of anticipation is not just “no longer strictly observed” in the Canadian Parliament, it never really was. Also at page 476, they write:

While the rule of anticipation is part of the Standing Orders in the British House of Commons, it has never been so in the Canadian House of Commons.

I would repeat and underline, “it has never been so in the Canadian House of Commons”.

They go on to conclude:

Furthermore, references to attempts made to apply this British rule to Canadian practice are not very conclusive.

Simply put, the argument posed by the member for Pickering—Scarborough East might succeed were he in the British House of Commons but it cannot succeed under Canadian parliamentary practice. There is no barrier to considering a different item touching the same subject matter, and most certainly the budget bill and this Bill C-253 cannot be considered to be two bills similar in substance.

Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada clearly sorts out the Canadian rule at paragraph 655, found on page 198. It states as follows:

A bill is in order when substantially different from another bill on the same matter previously disposed of during the session.

That rule applies clearly to the situation at hand. The budget implementation bill is substantially different from another bill previously disposed of during the session, that being Bill C-253. In fact, the difference is so great that the government opposed Bill C-253. It is introducing and obviously supports the budget implementation bill.

Clearly, it is substantially different, not just in its breadth of subject matter but also in the substance of its effect.

The ways and means motion and budget bill are significantly broader than Bill C-253, applying to a wide range of taxation and fiscal measures. They are also substantially different in the impact they will have on the finances of the public treasury and the effect they will have on the narrow question of how RESPs operate.

In addition, and putting it another way, the ways and means motion in part is reversing a decision the House made with respect to Bill C-253. The precedence for proceeding this way is as follows. At page 496 of Marleau and Montpetit, it states:

The House may reopen discussion on an earlier decision...only if the intention is to revoke it;

Standing Order 18 basically says the same thing.

Beauchesne's Citation 592(1) states:

A resolution may be rescinded and an order of the House discharged, notwithstanding the rule that a question, being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again....

Technically indeed, the rescinding of a vote is the matter of a new question; the form being to read the resolution of the House and to move that it be rescinded; and thus the same question which had been resolved in the affirmative is not again offered, although its effect is annulled.

There have been examples of orders being rescinded, revoked and discharged that could be found in Journals of May 7, 1898, page 269; August 1, 1942, page 708; November 22, 1944, page 923; November 24, 1944, page 927; and December 23, 1988, the House adopted an order revoking an order with respect to the sittings of the House which can be found at page 80 of the Journals of that day.

Therefore, repealing, rescinding and revoking a previous decision of the House is considered a different question.

Rule 655 of Beauchesne's can be seen to be definitive in determining that a ways and means motion and a budget bill based upon it are properly in order before the House. The roots of the rule in Beauchesne's, let us call it the Canadian rule, go back to just after Confederation.

A ruling of the Speaker on June 4, 1872, is exactly on point. The question the House was considering was an effort to legislate that one could not sit both in the House of Commons and in a provincial legislature at the same time, but two different efforts to do the same thing in a slightly different way were allowed to be considered in the same Parliament. This was found acceptable by the Speaker, who overruled an objection raised by the MP for Bothwell, who had argued, “that the principle involved in the bill is precisely the same one as the one voted on before”. More particular, he argued, “it proposes to deal with the same subject, and disqualify as candidates for election to the House of Commons the same class of persons”.

The Speaker found that was a “technical argument and that substantially the questions were different”.

As an aside, it is fascinating to read those Journals to see Sir John A. Macdonald's name listed among those voting in the majority at that time on that question in favour of the measure opposed by the Liberals of the day. It is also fascinating to see on the same day the vote on amendments from the Liberals seeking to ban any shareholder in the Canadian Pacific Railway from standing for Parliament, a discriminatory and unfair measure that the House wisely rejected that day.

However, returning to the main point, that ruling in 1872 is the anchor for the Canadian rule, different from the British, that a substantially different bill can deal with the same subject matter previously disposed of during the same session, which is exactly the case here.

The Canadian rule has been reaffirmed in many Speakers' rulings in the years that have followed. On February 24, 1971, Speaker Lamoureux restated the rule quite conclusively. He stated:

There is, therefore, in my view nothing procedurally wrong in having before the House at the same time concurrent or related bills which might be in contradiction with one another either because of the terms of the proposed legislation itself or in relation to the proposed amendments.

Related bills yet in contradiction with one another and, thus, substantially different, therefore, are entirely in order, just as is the case here.

In another decision on June 8, 1988, the Speaker reviewed all the relevant precedents and concluded as follows:

...I must declare that the practice of one bill amending another bill still before the House or not yet given Royal Assent is an acceptable one.

Again, this applies exactly here. Bill C-253 has not yet been given royal assent and the ways and means motion on budget bills seeking to affect it are acceptable under this rule.

The essence of the Canadian rule on those matters can be summarized by saying that the Speaker is never empowered to block such bills through a rule of anticipation. It is a question for the House of Commons to decide.

As Speaker Fraser ruled in 1992:

The Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons has not been given any specific authority over the form or content of omnibus bills.

Mr. Speaker, you are not empowered to do what the member for Pickering—Scarborough East is asking you to do by ruling on the content of the ways and means motion and the budget implementation bill. It is up to this House to pass judgment on the content of the motion and the bill.

I will re-emphasize once again that in a minority Parliament it is fully within the power of those members in opposition to pass that judgment contrary to the will of the government if they see fit to do so. They are seeking not to do so and seeking, instead, Mr. Speaker, to have you do that for them.

For the integrity of the government's fiscal plan, the government believes that if Bill C-253 becomes law, then it must be repealed in order to implement the provisions of the budget. We are talking about $900 million to $2 billion in lost revenues annually for the federal government and $450 million to $1 billion in lost revenues annually for provincial governments.

When the House adopted Bill C-253, it had not yet seen the detailed proposal that is contingent on repealing an earlier proposal. I see nothing procedurally wrong with the proceeding on the matter. One recent example is Bill C-27, the identity theft bill, which includes a coordinating amendment that would effectively replace the provisions of Bill C-299, a private member's bill currently before the Senate on identity theft, with the provisions in Bill C-27.

Ultimately, it is up to the House to decide. Speakers have consistently ruled that they do not have the authority to divide a bill and the question of the contents of a bill is best left as a matter for the House to decide.

Mr. Speaker, the final authority I would draw your attention to is the ruling of Speaker Fraser on November 28, 1991. It concluded, as well, that these issues are matters for the House to decide. The bill in question in 1991 was Bill C-35, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors in the Statutes of Canada. It proposed to amend, under certain conditions, a bill that was at second reading, a bill that had just received third reading, two other bills that were at third reading and two bills that were at committee.

Speaker Fraser's observations in 1991 are a worthy guide to your role here, Mr. Speaker.

He concluded that:

It is the duty of this Chair to safeguard the rights of the Members and the House to make fully informed decisions on the matters before it....

He continued:

The legislative process offers ample opportunity....

Then he goes on to review the options and scenarios, such as amendments, refusal, approval, further study and more, but ultimately he concludes:

All of these avenues offer Members full remedy to this conditional approach to legislating should they object to it. That decision rests with the House.

I repeat that key conclusion: that decision rests with this House.

The authorities are clear. Beauchesne's states the Canadian rule authoritatively:

A bill is in order when substantially different from another bill on the same matter previously disposed of during the same session.

Yes, the ways and means motion and the budget implementation bill do, in small part, touch the same subject matter as Bill C-253, but they are substantially different: different in scope, different in breadth of issues, and different in the substance of what they seek to do on the limited subject matter that they do have in common.

That difference in substance renders the ways and means motion and budget bill in order and properly a question to be decided by this House, not, with the greatest of respect, by you, Mr. Speaker. It may not be the British way, but it is the Canadian way from the time of Sir John A. and the days when he represented the fine constituency of Kingston in this House, which you represent today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the official opposition finance critic. It seems to me that including in the ways and means notice tabled this week provisions directly or indirectly affecting Bill C-253 is politically abusive and unparliamentary.

It must be kept in mind that the intent of the ways and means notice is to implement the budget implementation bill tabled on February 26. The ways and means notice was tabled on March 11, but Bill C-253 was passed by this House between those two dates. Had the bill been passed after March 11, the Minister of Finance and the government would not have been in a position to include provisions that short-circuit the majority decision of this House. In my opinion, it is totally contrary to the rules to include in the ways and means notice any provisions relating to Bill C-253.

If the government is dissatisfied, it has other parliamentary methods at its disposal for reopening the debate. At this point in time, however, it would be totally abusive and unparliamentary to include in the ways and means notice provisions relating to Bill C-253. Moreover, the government has made no secret of the fact that the ways and means notice includes provisions to override Bill C-253. We do not want to hear that the ways and means notice contains some elements that are substantially different from Bill C-253, because the government has admitted publicly that it would use the ways and means notice to override the majority decision by this House.

As well, the figures presented by the leader of the government in the House of Commons are pretty well ridiculous. If they were on the up and up, I fail to understand why the Finance Department and the Minister of Finance did not raise them at the Standing Committee on Finance during examination of Bill C-253. I was there, and the department people were asked to give a figure for the cost of the measure proposed by the Liberal member who tabled Bill C-253, but no reply was ever forthcoming. That was last spring.

How can it be that, 365 days or so later, they have not been able to let all parliamentarians know that this measure would cost $900 million? I hold no faith in that figure. It cropped up once the House had passed the bill. It is also very clear that the bill has other processes to go through, in the Senate in particular, and will probably not affect the Minister of Finance's budgetary framework for the current year.

For all these reasons, it seems to me that we are faced here with a tactic that is unparliamentary and politically abusive. As my Liberal colleague has done, I would request that you find out of order all those sections which, directly or indirectly, with Bill C-253.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again on this very important point of order.

Despite the citations by the hon. House leader, I think it is fairly clear, Sir, that your decision to this House of Commons on November 1, 2006, declaring that Bill C-253 standing in my name was indeed receivable and was in fact in order, is something that this House relied on.

Mr. Speaker, you will know that I have followed the procedures of this House. Not only did this House dutifully vote on the bill at the second reading, but it also passed in committee. It also passed at report stage, concurrence and third reading. I am very concerned about the ability for the government to now challenge, by an indirect means, a decision made by this House.

There are two issues. One is an issue of concern to me as to what I would refer to, and you would be familiar with, as detrimental reliance. We rely on your decision and the Chair to make a decision that is in fact applicable in determining whether a private member's bill can indeed proceed.

I would submit that this bill has done just that. Unless the hon. House leader is actually suggesting a challenge to your ruling, I would suggest that you have no choice but to rule the position of the ways and means motion by the government House leader and by the Minister of Finance, who has clearly linked this to Bill C-253, as indeed out of order.

Mr. Speaker, if we do not have that reliance on your decisions carrying through, it says much about future decisions. The hon. House leader is in fact trying to create a precedent through the back door, knowing full well that once a bill in the same session has been treated in this House, it cannot be undone and it cannot be reconsidered.

Mr. Speaker, I would submit to you again that your ruling of November 1, 2006, in which you declared Bill C-253 a bill that was indeed in order, must stand. Indeed, debates on the bill have gone on in this House in which the hon. minister and members have participated, and several members from that side of the House and that party supported the bill in principle at second reading. It seems to me that if you have made a ruling you must stand by that ruling and therefore rule this rather nefarious attempt by the minister and the House leader as indeed out of order.

Mr. Speaker, tempting as it is to address the other issues raised, I have only addressed the new ones. Tempting as it is to seek to appeal your earlier ruling on the admissibility of Bill C-253, I will resist the temptation to do that at this point, because that is of course not what the intention is of the ways and means motion.

The ways and means motion is quite clear. Its intention is very different. It is not indirect. It is very direct, contrary to what my friend said. It is a direct effort to repeal Bill C-253, something that is entirely proper for us to do in this fashion.

We respect the ruling that you have made, notwithstanding our submissions on the admissibility of Bill C-253 originally. This does not seek to question that. This simply seeks to launch an initiative properly through the ways and means motion and the budget implementation bill to repeal Bill C-253 because of its detrimental impact on the fiscal framework. The fact is that it is entirely contrary to the fiscal framework that this House adopted in the past, although very few members of that party participated in the vote on it.

I want to thank the hon. member for Markham—Unionville, the government House leader and the hon. members for Joliette and Pickering—Scarborough East for their interventions on this matter. I will soon come back to the House with a ruling.

Mr. Speaker, today is the seventh and the last day of supply. Page 722 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice by Marleau and Montpetit sets out that “Parliament does not grant Supply until the opposition has had an opportunity to demonstrate why it should be refused”.

That is why we have opposition days: to hold the government to account for its spending. But for this historic and ancient right to hold the Crown to account for its spending to be relevant, it also has to be operational. For there to be debate in which the government can be meaningfully held to account, there has to be notice given as to what it is that will be debated.

The Standing Orders set out how the notice is to be given. There is currently a 48 hour notice period required for an opposition day notice under Standing Order 81(14)(a). This standing order was created at a time when such notice was sufficient to allow all members to know what would be debated on an allotted supply day, because the practice at that time was that only one motion was put forward by a member of any recognized party.

There was even a standing order put into place to allow for the situation where more than one motion was presented, and that is, as we know, the Speaker's power to decide between competing motions. That is outlined under Standing Order 81(14)(b).

Since 1983, after the McGrath committee report, this House has published a projected order of business to allow members to prepare themselves for the business of the House. It has been the practice that the government informs the Journals Branch of its intentions for the next sitting day, and the Journals Branch places this information, as we know, on the projected order of business. It is, of course, very helpful to all members in the House to know what business may be coming up.

The practice has been changing with respect to notice on allotted supply days, changing because all parties now place numerous motions on the notice paper 48 hours before an allotted day has been designated but only inform the Clerk and, through her, you, Mr. Speaker, which one will be chosen for debate 24 hours before the allotted day. As we know, this usually means that in regard to an opposition day motion that a party chooses, we will all understand what that motion is at 6 p.m., because that is when the projected order of business goes out.

Today, however, on this final day of supply, we are facing a new situation. The Liberal Party has decided to give you, Mr. Speaker, and through you, all members of the House, less than two hours' notice. In fact, it really was one hour. We learned of it at 2 p.m. today, with notice of what its motion would be for its allotted supply day today. We find this to be a completely unacceptable practice. In fact, it is a new low for the official opposition.

I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this delay is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the actual notice periods for which our rules provide and which the projected order of business was created to address.

Page 974 of Marleau and Montpetit states:

The Order Paper lists all the business which might be taken up by the House on any given day, but it does not indicate which items the government intends, or is likely, to call. The Projected Order of Business, published each sitting day, is a tentative working agenda which lists all the government and Private Members' Business expected to be taken up on a particular day.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the official opposition abandoned its responsibility to inform you and, through you, this House, of what motion it intended to call when it failed to inform you in time for the publication of the projected order of business which motion would be called in the House today. By using such tactics, and by failing to give meaningful notice as to what it would call for debate, the Liberal Party is attempting to do through the back door what the notice rules demand it do through the front door.

Even though the motion that the Liberals finally selected at two o'clock today is, we believe, on a very serious subject matter and raises the question as to why would they throw it in at the last minute, I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that they have forfeited their right to call any motion today, given that the question surrounds supply. It is indeed questionable that the opposition is opposing at all.

I therefore submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that today's supply day should be a debate on supply, on the unopposed items in supplementary estimates (B). However, if you feel that Standing Order 81(14)(b) compels you to choose a Liberal motion for today, I believe that the proper choice would be the motion that first received notice, which is the motion from the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe.

We cannot allow the deliberate subversion of the rules of this place by allowing tactics that deprive members of the House of proper notice periods, which the rules say that we should have. As you have said before, Mr. Speaker, no one shall do through the back door what cannot be done through the front door.

If this practice is allowed, then it raises the question as to why any party should give any notice, or indeed why the government itself should give any notice of whatever matter is coming up. That is why we have these rules to provide a meaningful and proper notice period.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you take this into consideration and make a decision today to not allow the motion of the Liberals to stand, given that we only received notice at 2 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out for the hon. member, for you and for other members of the House that the order paper, which I have in my hand, clearly indicates that the item we wish to discuss today was put on the order paper on December 4, 2007. Therefore, proper notice has been given to all members of the House that this matter may be called on an opposition day when one of those opposition days comes along.

Thursday of last week the government House leader officially designated that this would be an allotted day for the official opposition, the Liberal Party. It is therefore our prerogative, under the rules, to call for debate one of the items that stands in the name of a Liberal member as identified in the order paper for the business of supply. That is exactly what we are proposing to do.

The motion standing in the name of the member for Mount Royal is the item we wish to call forward for discussion in what remains of this opposition day after all of these points of order. I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the item standing there since December 4, 2007 is perfectly in order and the debate should proceed.

Peter Van LoanLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, I have considerable sympathy for the submissions from the New Democratic Party House leader.

We were in our office working late last night. There was an unusual circumstance. With the House sitting until midnight, Journals would not publish what was being selected, if proper notice were not given until midnight. Our staff kept working until that time to advise those who had to prepare for the debate of the outcome.

Journals published, indicating that no motion had been selected by the Liberal Party, which led all of us to conclude, as the NDP concluded, based on what was published at that time, that the motion to be dealt with today would be the government's supply motion and the unopposed items in the motion for supply. I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is merit in that.

The question of notice is a significant and important one as it affects the ability. It is designed to allow the members of the House to exercise their privileges to speak to matters that are important to them and to have the opportunity to be aware and to prepare for those items. That is why there is a requirement for notice. I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that in this case notice did not occur, and I would support the submissions of the member for Vancouver East insofar as that is concerned.

However, Mr. Speaker, if you do not agree with that and do believe that the failure to provide notice does not disentitle the official opposition, the Liberal Party, to proceed with a motion, I believe if you do consider, and I respectfully do not share that opinion, that the Liberals can proceed with an opposition motion, notwithstanding the lack of notice, that decision also carries with it their right to select which motion with which they wish to proceed.

I have one further item that I would draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker. I am looking at the projected order of business, which we all receive on a daily basis. I note at the very top of that projected order of business the advice is offered to all members of the House that it is subject to change without notice.

Mr. Speaker, such an important debate cannot be held without the Bloc Québécois' contribution. I am a little surprised that the NDP House leader made remarks in favour of limiting the opposition's rights. In fact, the government always has the possibility of changing things at the last minute; and we need more time.

I would have liked to see the Liberal Party motion sooner than we did. However, at the same time, I will recognize that it has been on the Notice Paper for more than 48 hours. In my opinion, the Liberal Party can debate the motion it has chosen, with the notice it has given, but—again—it would have been more elegant to have told us about it in advance. I do not see why the opposition parties would ask you to give us fewer rights than the government has.

That said, Mr. Speaker, if you decide that the Liberals are not entitled to their opposition day, I will remind you that if you follow the rules, the Bloc Québécois could very well step up in the Liberals' place, since we are still entitled to roughly three quarters of an opposition day. And we are ready.

Again, the right decision would be simply to uphold the Liberal opposition day, with the motion placed on notice not so long ago, but in accordance with the rules.

The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East.

I point out that contrary to past practice, and I have been here a number of years and remember when there were never any opposition motions sitting on the order paper, we now have 30 opposition motions sitting on the order paper, all of which have been placed on notice with more than 48 hours notice and are therefore eligible to be called for debate on days that have been awarded to that party based on the division of opposition days.

These opposition days are assigned to the different parties of the House following meetings between the House leaders and the whips. It is not the Speaker who decides all this.

The other important thing about this is that the government can choose the topic for debate at any time.

I point out that page 406 of Marleau and Montpetit says:

The business that the House is to consider during Government Orders is determined solely by the government. On occasions when the Opposition has protested a change in the projected order of business for a specific sitting day, the Chair has reminded Members of the government's prerogative.

In other words, if the government decided that tomorrow instead of bill X it decided to call bill Y, it could announce it at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, in effect with no notice, and proceed with bill Y instead of bill X, as long as bill Y is on the order paper and 48 hours notice of its introduction has been given and it is before the House.

We have in this case, in my view, a similar situation in respect of the opposition. The opposition has placed notices of motions for supply days on the order paper, as I have indicated. Apparently the choice was not made until earlier this afternoon. I just became aware of it once the point of order was raised. However, whichever one it is, notice has been given, so technically the members are aware that the subject is one that could be called for debate at a certain time on a certain opposition day, and that is what has happened today.

Accordingly, in my view, the motion that we are about to debate, whenever we complete routine proceedings, assuming we get through them before 5:30 p.m., will be the one that is the subject for debate today, and I so rule.

I will not speculate on whether a motion that had not been placed on notice would be eligible. I will that for another argument for another day, and possibly for one of my fellow Chair occupants.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in relation to women's ski jumping at the 2010 Olympic Games.

Women's ski jumping is an important sports event and worthy of Olympic status. Therefore, the committee urges the government to encourage the International Olympic Committee to recognize and include ski jumping as an event at the 2010 Vancouver-Whistler Olympic Games.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is in response to the tragic death of a Nova Scotia teaching assistant, named Theresa McEvoy, who was killed in a 2004 car crash by a repeat young offender. It encompasses all the Nunn commission recommendations, including those which Bill C-25 failed to address.

I should emphasize the work of Mr. Justice Nunn and also thank Mr. Hugh Wright, the lawyer for the family of Theresa McEvoy, for his assistance with drafting the bill.